Ken Ham's Ark Torpedoed With Charges of Religious Discrimination

McGruber writes: Back on February 4, "Science Guy" Bill Nye debated Creationist Kenneth Alfred "Ken" Ham. That high-profile debate helped boost support for Ham's $73 million "Ark Encounter" project, allowing Ham to announce on February 25 that a municipal bond offering had raised enough money to begin construction. Nye said he was "heartbroken and sickened for the Commonwealth of Kentucky" after learning that the project would move forward. Nye said the ark would eventually draw more attention to the beliefs of Ham's ministry, which preaches that the Bible's creation story is a true account, and as a result, "voters and taxpayers in Kentucky will eventually see that this is not in their best interest."

In July, the Kentucky Tourism Development Finance Authority unanimously approved $18.25 million worth of tax incentives to keep the ark park afloat. The funds are from a state program that allows eligible tourism attractions a rebate of as much as 25 percent of the investment in the project. Since then, the Ark Park's employment application has became public: "Nestled among the requirements for all job applicants were three troubling obligatory documents: 'Salvation testimony,' 'Creation belief statement,' and a 'Confirmation of your agreement with the AiG statement of faith.' (AiG is Answers in Genesis, Ham's ministry and Ark Encounter's parent company.)"

That caused the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet to halt its issuance of tax incentives for the ark park. Bob Stewart, secretary of the cabinet, wrote to Ham that "the Commonwealth does not provide incentives to any company that discriminates on the basis of religion and we will not make any exception for Ark Encounter, LLC." Before funding could proceed, Stewart explained, "the Commonwealth must have the express written assurance from Ark Encounter, LLC that it will not discriminate in any way on the basis of religion in hiring." The ark park has not yet sunk. It is "still pending before the authority" and a date has not yet been set for the meeting where final approval will be considered.

Comments

Re:How is this relevent?

[gcnaddict]

Sure. Soylent News.

I only come to slashdot for the mod points I keep getting, but if that stream stops, I'll quit altogether.

Will they just pull the words, and ask...

[Bomarc]

I've seen this type of thing before. They will just pull the words, get their funding, then when someone apples for the job they will then ask in the interview. If they are "caught" in the interview, they will blame the interviewing person... say "sorry" and continue.

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

*opium

Re:Sanity?

[mythosaz]

While I hate the idea of government/public funds going to feed a Creationist anything, it's simply a tax rebate offered to tourism generating projects. Six Flags Kentucky (ride the log jam jamboree!) and Ten Commandments Lexington (ride the old testament log jam jamboree!) would both get the tourism generating rebate on taxes. Meh.

The only interesting this about this is that the organizers of the project are the sort of morons who don't understand you can't screen job applicants based on their faith. [I mean, we already knew they were idiots, but apparently they also have the world's least competent HR department.]

Meanwhile, the Pope's opinion...

[hort_wort]

The Pope seems to be more on the side of Bill Nye in this debate. Huh.

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

Re:Sanity?

[amicusNYCL]

Why wouldn't they? It's a tourist draw, just like the museum. They want tourist dollars, which is why they have laws to help new tourist attractions get funding. You can argue about whether or not people would actually want to go there, but all you need to do is look at the attendance for the museum. Having 2 similar attractions in the same area would probably increase tourism overall, in fact. Why just go to the museum when they could go to the museum and then the theme park? Having the theme park would most likely increase museum attendance also.

Re:Sanity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lately, there has been the legal position that a more recent Constitutional amendment forbids states from engaging in practices forbidden to the Federal government (the Incorporation argument). This has a strange impact of invalidating state laws entirely, and of twisting the Tenth Amendment.

14th amendment. There is nothing strange here.

In the Incorporation interpretation, it would be patently illegal for the state to *refuse* to fund such a thing based on it being a religious artifact

No, it wouldn't be. This violates the separation of church and state. The government shouldn't be supporting any such thing, and your arguments make zero sense.

Re:Sanity?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Making laws to exclude state support of religious functions or state endorsement(!) of religion, including display of religious symbolism in courthouses as appropriated by the staff under the same budget which does indeed allow them to purchase *anything* *else* as discretionary decoration, would be in violation of this whole "Congress shall make no law" thing. Taking action without first making a law, on the other hand, would be a Constitutional crisis of Executive overreach, by which the Executive branch acts unilaterally as an authoritarian arm (i.e. a dictatorship or oligarchy).

How about something from Kentucky's constitution?

Section 5. Right of religious freedom. No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or supportofanyministerofreligion;norshallanyman be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

Kentucky is violating its own constitution as well as the US Constitution.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Sanity?

[Bobartig]

Your answer is so off-base that it's not even wrong, it's simply irrelevant, but here goes my attempt to address some of your inaccuracies.

It really is. There is no "separation of church and state". There is "not making laws banning or establishing the practice of religion."

For individuals versed in the First Amendment, and religious rights jurisprudence, both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are understood to provide the substantive basis for the concept of "separation of church and state" (SoCaS). The two are the same thing. What you mean to say is that SoCaS does not mandate a complete division between state action and any religious entity.

Lately, there has been the legal position that a more recent Constitutional amendment forbids states from engaging in practices forbidden to the Federal government (the Incorporation argument). This has a strange impact of invalidating state laws entirely, and of twisting the Tenth Amendment.

Unless you live in the 19th Century, this concept is not a legal position that has come about 'lately'. It has, in fact, been repeatedly upheld by generations of the SCOTUS, and doctrinally the concept of incorporation has existed for over a century. In the past decade, every sitting justice has penned, or joined in an opinion that explicitly relies on incorporation in some way, and it cannot be maintained that the notion is either a recent development, or not broadly accepted.

It certainly interacts with the 10th Amendment, but the Constitution is abound with interactions between and among its several clauses. Understanding these interactions, as opposed to suggesting that they cannot occur, is required for any sort of meaningful understanding of the law.

In the Incorporation interpretation, it would be patently illegal for the state to *refuse* to fund such a thing based on it being a religious artifact; the baseless assertion of an imaginary separation of church and state, interestingly enough, would also demand that the state not take a stance *against* religion in this way.

No, as this is equating any religious activity that seeks public funding as necessary to the free exercise of that religion, which has never been held to be the case. Your faith may require you to build a rocket ship out of elephant tusks and diamonds, but that doesn't mean the state is obligated to fund such an endeavor. This example just fails to parse either of the 1st Amendment religious rights in any meaningful manner.

Apparently, it is a hard concept to grasp.

On this point we are in complete agreement. You have vividly demonstrated what it looks like for an individual to lack any substantive understanding of incorporation, or religious rights, state action, or separation of church and state, whatsoever. I agree it's complicated, non-intuitive, and easy to get wrong, just as you have done here.

(the quick and dirty as to why this isn't unconstitutional is because the issuance of a municipal bond basically allows an electorate to vote with their dollars as to whether they wish to fund a project of some kind. The issuance of the bond is not considered an entanglement running afoul of the Establishment Clause because the funding is ultimately sourced from private investors. Religious rights jurisprudence is already a doctrinal mess, and we don't need you getting it so wrong.)